Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 198 posts

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#101

Post by Mirioron »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #90
VonGuard wrote: post #36

This article doesn't seem to take into account that Helium is becoming scarce, and when used in airships, it's eventually just released and lost forever. NYT Article on the shortage: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium-shortage-p... We used to have a strategic Helium reserve in the US for zepplins and so forth, then it was just kept for chemistry and other purposes. I think we started selling it down un…

It's the second most abundant element in the universe. Maybe we'll put in a tad more effort to explore it if Helium runs out.

Helium can escape Earth's atmosphere though.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#102

Post by colechristensen »

Mirioron wrote: post #100
colechristensen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can produce more of it by distilling it out of the atmosphere, it is just rather expensive. This is exclusively how neon is produced (as far as I can find) so it is obviously economically viable at a certain price. I did a calculation once about nuclear production of helium and found that the heat from the nuclear reactors producing enough helium to match current usage would be on the same order of magnitude as th…

Helium is light enough to escape Earth's atmosphere though. Eventually the atmosphere will run out of it.

It is also constantly being emitted by radioactive elements decaying on Earth, that's how it got in the natural gas deposits in the first place and also the atmosphere. Alpha decay makes helium, or more accurately is helium. An alpha particle is just a helium-4 nucleus.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#103

Post by blkhawk »

haspoken wrote: post #56
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #50

I got a dumb idea. Permanently stationed blimps around the world that never land. And cable cars for moving between them, on pulleys. Pros: Energy efficient: no need to generate lift. No need for fans to move the cars as you are on pulleys, which are more efficient. Minimal noise! You could go as fast as you want but your efficiency will start to drop due to drag. It can't be any worse an idea than a hyperloop can it…

Sounds like they would need to keep the same position. Would that be practical for such a large, light ship that can not avoid the weather?

There is not much weather high enough. drag on the cables due to wind would be the primary concern.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#104

Post by baq »

melling wrote: post #4

All air travel combined emits 2.5% of our yearly CO2 emissions. That’s hundreds of thousands of flights a day. We could just eliminate all coal electric plants in the world and make a real impact. Then use that cleaner energy to power our electric cars.

stratospheric water vapor is a significant GHG in itself.

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/53230/1174

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#105

Post by pvaldes »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #96
WalterBright wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should just use hydrogen. We learned how to safely fly airliners full of jet fuel, we can solve the safety problem with a bag full of H.

Jet fuel can be contained easily. Hydrogen diffuses even through welded containers. It can also weaken them structurally: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

Easy to store in form of water as long as we could create it when needed, but water is heavy as fuel so it cancels the floating effect.

An airbag for airplanes that would create a floating bag of hydrogen in seconds helping to do a safe landing would be awesome on the other hand. We could use the extra oxygen for masks also.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#106

Post by ryanlol »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #76
perilunar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Zeppelins can have huge windows and fly relatively low Also they are constrained by weight, not volume, so there's plenty of legroom. The Hindenburg had private cabins, a lounge, a bar, and a dining room (and a smoking room!). More like a cruise ship than an airliner.

Well, if you are willing to pay 15k+ USD for a ticket, airlines like Emirates or Etihad have those things too.

I’ve done several long intercontinental trips in F on the emirates A380 and usually paid less than 4k for the tickets.

But yeah, depends on the route.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#107

Post by UserIsUnused »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #10
melling wrote: post #4

All air travel combined emits 2.5% of our yearly CO2 emissions. That’s hundreds of thousands of flights a day. We could just eliminate all coal electric plants in the world and make a real impact. Then use that cleaner energy to power our electric cars.

Except we're not demi-Gods, able to decide what to do at will with the entire planet. Pursuing some serious efforts in one area can't be turned down simply because there's something else that could be done in another area.

Except that as a collective, we are indeed demi-gods of this planet.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#108

Post by b0rsuk »

szemet wrote: post #83
VonGuard wrote: post #36

This article doesn't seem to take into account that Helium is becoming scarce, and when used in airships, it's eventually just released and lost forever. NYT Article on the shortage: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/science/helium-shortage-p... We used to have a strategic Helium reserve in the US for zepplins and so forth, then it was just kept for chemistry and other purposes. I think we started selling it down un…

Why not use hydrogen, its cheap and zeppelins can be smaller and fly higher. We will maybe better in avoiding accidents compared to 1937: - have better materials - can use it only for cargo with drones - no human should travel with them! - should/can use routes to avoid cities, and should/could build some separate safe landing space etc... finally: Hydrogen fires are less destructive to immediate surroundings than ga…

I would also rather use hydrogen.

The Hindenburg disaster was spectacular, but not especially deadly! 36 fatalities, 62 survivors. Compare to modern passenger airplanes, where EVERYONE tends to die. If modern dislike for zeppelins is mostly due to Hindenburg, it's irrational.

Re: Some scientists are serious about resurrecting zeppelins for cargo

#110

Post by pasabagi »

b0rsuk wrote: post #108
szemet wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use hydrogen, its cheap and zeppelins can be smaller and fly higher. We will maybe better in avoiding accidents compared to 1937: - have better materials - can use it only for cargo with drones - no human should travel with them! - should/can use routes to avoid cities, and should/could build some separate safe landing space etc... finally: Hydrogen fires are less destructive to immediate surroundings than ga…

I would also rather use hydrogen. The Hindenburg disaster was spectacular, but not especially deadly! 36 fatalities, 62 survivors. Compare to modern passenger airplanes, where EVERYONE tends to die. If modern dislike for zeppelins is mostly due to Hindenburg, it's irrational.

I think there were a series of disasters - of which the Hindenburg was just the last.

All the same, I think with modern materials, Hydrogen would be pretty safe.

Post reply on HN